Background facts
Background facts
The background facts to this appeal are as set out in the error of law decision of 29 November 2023. In short the appellant arrived in the UK on 28 November 1999 and pursued an asylum claim in a false identity: whereas in truth he is Betim Onuzi, born 23 February 1976, an Albanian national, in that claim he asserted that he was Betim Jonuzi, born on 22 February 1976 and at risk of persecution from the Yugoslav authorities in Kosovo as an ethnic Albanian. Following a sorry tale of administrative mishap he was granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on 17 May 2006, on the basis that he should be treated as if he had been granted Exceptional Leave to Remain previously, though it seems likely that in fact no such grant had ever been made.
He applied to naturalise as a British citizen on 25 April 2007, in the false identity put forward in his original asylum claim, completing the application form by ticking “no” as to the question whether he had engaged in any activities that might be relevant to whether he was a person of good character. The Guidance believed to be in force at the time, to which the form directed him, stated “If you are in any doubt about whether you have done something or it has been alleged that you have done something which might lead us to think that you are not of good character you should say so.”
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background
- Decision and reasons
- Good character in the context of deprivation: section 40(3) BNA 1981
- Sleiman considered
- Conclusion
- Error of law decision
- DIRECTIONS
- Notice of Decision
- THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
- Background facts
- History of the appeal
- Having considered the framework of statute, policy and case law, Judge Canavan and I directed ourselves to this effect
- Proceedings at the continuation hearing
- Decision and Reasons
- The decision of Sleiman (deprivation of citizenship; conduct) [2017] UKUT 00367 indicates a situation in which the chain of causation between the original dishonesty and the grant of naturalisation is
- I have not been referred to the Respondent’s family ILR policy, which Chapter 55 cites, but I understand it to be the concession cited in JS (Family ILR Exercise, near-miss argument) [2007] UKAIT 80 t
- Taking the approach in Chimi [2023] UKUT 115 (IAC) to the relevant issues, I should consider these questions
- Muslija [2022] UKUT 337 at headnote 4 holds that
- I am willing to assume that that period would involve some worry for the adults but there is no reason to think there would be any significant impact on the children, even if the parents choose to mak
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 00144 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png)